Question about lethal injection

[Leafy3]

Grim subject, I know, but why is it seemingly so hard for prisons in the states to get it right? It's clearly an unpleasant way to go...Why don't they put the person under a general anaesthetic first?

We euthanise animals quickly & painlessly, why don't they (can't they?) use the same drugs on humans?

Barbaric? I’d call it karma.

Call it what you like. Doesn't make it any better. The death penalty is abhorrent.

Quite apart from the moral questions around whether it is right for the state to kill people, there is also the issue around miscarriages of justice. Would you be happy for one of your loved ones to be put to death by accident if they were wrongly convicted of a crime? Would that be a sacrifice worth making in your view?

Because drugs are patented and their manufacture is licenced. You can't just go out and make drugs if a chemical company owns the rights to them. They can't import them because the companies won't sell to them. Also, in many cases, it is far more expensive to make small doses of drugs than large quantities due to economies of scale and the cost of ingredients.
You also then need to find qualified chemists, engineers, pharmacists, technicians etc to work in a factory to exclusively manufacture 'murder drugs' as these would only be used in executions, not for the other uses these drugs have. You couldn't even use the 'self-defence' argument used by people working in the arms industry.

I don’t think hanging is efficient is it?I thought it often went wrong?

(Taking a life shouldn’t be simple)

Several people have explained. Maybe you missed the posts explaining why the appropriate drugs aren’t available?

No. Anyone who is receiving the lethal injection has been found guilty of committing horrific crimes. It does not mean they committed them. At least 20 people have been wrongly executed in the US and 200 more released after being sentenced to death but before execution.

The death penalty isn't even a deterrent anyway. Most civilised countries abolished it years ago.

You appear to have misunderstood my post.

I will call it karma for those that have hurt people and taken lives of others.
For those that there is definite evidence they did the crime or a confession yes the state can kill them.
Of course I wouldn’t be happy if a family member was wrongly convicted.
Would you be happy knowing your child was molested and murdered or you parter was killed and the offender just got to carry on living?

You are correct of course, I was referring to Albert Pierrepoint who was extremely skilled and took great care to make it quick and painless. Granted I can't see that the same will to take such care would be universal but it does demonstrate an attainable standard.

I suprised the US Govn doesn't set up a its down production line, patents only last 20 years so nearly all of the drugs used are patent-free.

If people can make crystal meth in their spare room I am sure that a Govn chemical weapons research lab can knock up something easily.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That hangman you're taking about is Albert Pierrepoint

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

He didn't believe that it was a deterrent.

Firstly, the Western use of the word 'karma' bears absolutely no resemblance to its application in Hinduism or Buddhism: essentially you just mean revenge. Own what you mean.

And secondly, state-sanctioned murder (because that's what it is) is an incredibly high price that I, as a member of a civilised society, am not prepared to pay, no matter what.

Miscarriages of justice aside (and they are frighteningly common), when you put the power to take a life into the hands of the state then it is entirely possible that I, or a friend or a family member, might one day find ourselves on the wrong side of the government of the day.

The death penalty is fundamentally wrong.

This is the exact way I feel about capital punishment. There is something unsettling about saying that murder, for instance, is wrong but then in the same breath using this as a punishment.

It is a complex debate as if somebody asked me what would you want to happen if someone murdered / r*ped / burnt down your kids I would absolutely want them to suffer a long and painful death, but zooming out of the hypothetical, I do believe that two wrongs don’t in fact make a right.

I hope that in that situation, my stance on the death penalty would remain unchanged, but obviously it is not possible to say what I would actually feel if a member of my own family was murdered. I very much doubt that I would be thinking straight in that situation, which is why I wouldn't ever judge a victim's family for feeling whatever they feel.

However, that's why we have judges and juries - to make decisions that are calm, measured and not swayed by the overwhelming emotions which are understandably felt by the victims' families.

Not all victims' families feel the same in any case. One of my university friends was raped and murdered by her ex boyfriend. Her parents - motivated by their faith, which I respect but do not share - have worked incredibly hard on themselves to be able to "forgive" her killer. They would not support the death penalty, even after their loss.

As for your suggestion that "definite evidence" should be required in order to enable the state to kill people, presumably you understand people who have been subjected to miscarriages of justice have been found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". And many have been pressured into making false confessions as well. So if you support the death penalty, you are effectively saying that you think the state killing a few innocent people by accident is a price worth paying. Fair enough if that's your view, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Totally agree with you.

But it's not difficult to work out that murder by the state is not the solution.

Because the sort of people who support capital punishment are tightwads.

Would you be happy knowing your child was molested and murdered or you parter was killed and the offender just got to carry on living?

Possibly not, but it would be ridiculous to set social policy around my primitive revenge instincts. I am happy that offenders get to carry on living so they can spend most of the rest of their lives being punished for their offences and, if at all possible, learning to be useful members of society.

Of course I would want horrific things to happen to anyone who murdered my child. That’s why we have a judicial system, rather than leaving the treatment of offenders in the hands of the victim’s relatives.

My reasons for wishing convicted murders as painless a death as possible is more for the benefit of the executioner(s) and less the prisoner.

This shows how little you know given that confession is one of the least reliable forms of evidence.

Yet here you are advocating for someone's death based on your lack of education and knowledge on this subject. Literally willing to have someone put to death. To snuff out their existence. To take them from their family.

The Dunning Kruger effect in action

There are vast amounts of material available on why confessions are so unreliable if you care to look.

I suggest you start with the Reykjavik confessions podcast. It's an excellent example of how peoples lives can be torn asunder by false confession.

Fourteen days in May is also utterly compelling and horrifying look at the barbaric of the death penalty.

Some of the completely innocent icelanders later committed suicide. You'd have probably preferred for the state to hang them while you bayed for blood. Pretending you are morally superior and then turning a blind eye when miscarriages of justice are uncovered

Of course i would want an offender to keep living. To serve their sentence. To live with their crime. If your instant reaction is death as punishment, you are frankly no better than them.

When Britain had the death penalty, we had an incredibly efficient hangman, anyone know why hanging isn't used in the states?

Our last hangman ultimately didn't support the death penalty. It must be pretty hard to live with having killed people like Timothy Evens, John Bentley and Ruth Ellis. I suspect the only people who would volunteer to be hangmen now would be deeply unsuitable for the post.

How many innocent people executed would be too many for you to accept that the death penalty is wrong? There is a correct answer.